Hi, again, Shan -
You wrote: <predictions were comes true fulfilling all the three parameters.>>

That may or may not be true, Shan, but even if it _is_ true, it could be, and probably is, meaningless. Virtually anyone can achieve a high success rate by simply choosing time/location/magnitude parameters that are favorable. Brian/Skywise has you beat by a country mile in that regard, and, in so doing, has quite effectively shown the logical fallacy of pointing to "success rates" as a validation of methodology.

Statistical analysis, properly used, is an extraordinarily powerful tool. It is available to predictors, and has been for centuries. In fact, for determining whether any earthquake prediction scheme achieves results better than chance, it is the ONLY tool available to us. It is actually rather surprising and counter-intuitive that NO prediction scheme has yet managed to overcome this obstacle. Despite the fact that such a success would be of enormous interest to scientists. The best and brightest in the field have, for the most part, determined that the earthquake nucleation process is chaotic in nature. Even the earthquake doesn't know it's going to happen until it happens (somebody else said that - I haven't been able to determine authorship. But I think it was actually rather clever!). In the developed world (infrastructure-wise), deterministic prediction (read: short-term warnings of damaging quakes) has little utility. A prediction scheme would have to have nearly a zero false-alarm rate for it to be useful. Earthquakes don't kill people, buildings do. No major, modern urban area is going to be evacuated based on any prediction that does not have an exceptionally high likelihood of being accurate. Meanwhile, the much-maligned scientific "establishment" has had enormous success already in saving many thousands of lives - in the developed world. Scientists, engineers, and building code authors have combined their expertise with probabilistic forecasts (essential for determination of economic and social value), in order to assure that our buildings don't kill us. The remarkably low death toll in U.S. earthquakes since early in the twentieth century substantiates that highly rational and admirable result.

Michael F. Williams
Arroyo Grande, CA USA